Allowed

Gulnaz R.Nensey v. Cosmos Publicity and Display and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2005SJ/438/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment decrees a suit based on a dishonoured bill of exchange for Rs.1,00,000. The court held that in the absence of appearance or reply from defendants served with summons, a decree follows under Order 37, CrPC. The suit is allowed with the principal sum, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Decreed for the plaintiff; defendants ordered to pay Rs.1,39,000/- plus interest at 9% p.a. from the date of suit and all costs.

Gulnaz R.Nensey Vs Cosmos Publicity and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENTNO. 438 OF 2003

¶2

 WITH

¶3

 SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1991 OF 2002

¶4

 Smt.Gulnaz Riaz Nensey .. Plaintiffs

¶5

 versus

¶6

 M/s.Cosmos Publicity & Display & ors.. Defendants

¶7

 Mr.P.B. Kapadia for the plaintiff.

¶8

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK,J.

¶9

 DATED : 14th March 2005.

¶10

 P.C.:

¶11

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
 None present for the defendant.

¶12

 2. Perused the affidavit of service and also the
 report of the Section Officer dated 7th march 2005.
 From the said affidavit and report, it appears that
 the writ of summons was served on defendant nos.1, 3
 and 5 by affixing on 28th February 2003 as well as

¶13

 sending it by RPAD. Despite service, the defendant
 nos.1, 3 and 5 have not filed an appearance. The
 plaintiff is entitled to a decree under Order 37 Rule
 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶14

 3. Perused the affidavit of service dated 1st

¶15

 March 2005 regarding the service of Summons for
 judgement on defendant nos.2 and 4. Despite service
 of Summons for Judgement on defendant nos.2 and 4
 through their Advocate, the defendant nos.2 and 4
 have not filed any affidavit in reply. In the
 circumstances, the averments made in the plaint are
 deemed to be accepted by them and the plaintiff is
 entitled to a decree under Order 37 Rule 3(6) of the
 Code of Civil Procedure.

¶16

 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff hands in
 original documents. The documents are taken on
 record and collectively marked Exhibit-A.

¶17

 5. Perused the plaint and the documents filed on
 record. From the plaint and documents, it appears
 that the defendant no.1 is the partnership firm and
 defendant nos.3 to 5 are its partners. For a
 valuable consideration, the defendant no.1 drew a
 bill of exchange for Rs.1,00,000/- and the defendant

¶18

 no.2 accepted the same. However, the defendant no.2
 failed and neglected to pay on presentation for
 payment. The plaintiff demanded the payment from the
 defendants by a demand notice. However, the
 defendants failed and neglected to pay. In the
 circumstances as mentioned above, the plaintiff is
 entitled to a decree of the principal sum and
 interest under section 80 of the Negotiable
 Instruments Act. As regards the interest on the date
 of the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to a
 reasonable interest u/s.34 of the Code of Civil
 Procedure. Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶19

 6. Summons for Judgement is made absolute against
 defendant nos.2 and 4 and the suit of the plaintiff
 is decreed against all the defendants as follows:-

¶20

 7. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum
 of Rs.1,39,000/- together with interest on the
 principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- at 9% p.a. from the
 date of the suit till payment and all costs of the
 suit.

¶21

 8. Issue Court fee refund certificate as per
 rules.

¶22

 D.G. KARNIK,J

Gulnaz R.Nensey v. Cosmos Publicity and Display and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulnaz R.Nensey v. Cosmos Publicity and Display and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girish C. Lodha Alias Girish N. Mehta Vs Niyamat Sahirali Cassam and Ors.

Smt.S.Y.Jalgaonkar Vs Narayan R.Padamkar and Ors.

Patiraj Yadav Vs Bansnarayan Yadav and Girish Patel

Economy Refrigeration Ltd. Vs Chandra Hegde Prop.of Pinagara Restaurant and Bar

M/S.Ideocon Leasing and Industrial Finance Ltd. Vs M/S.Sri Sharda Paramshw- Ari Textiles Ltd. and Ors.

Ajaykumar Tiwari Vs Badriprasad R. Pandey